Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Familial Cancer
Published in: Familial Cancer 3/2008

01-09-2008

Psychological and cancer-specific distress at 18 months post-testing in women with demonstrated BRCA1 mutations for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer

Authors: Jon G. Reichelt, Pål Møller, Ketil Heimdal, Alv A. Dahl

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 3/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim The aim of this longitudinal study was to explore both levels of and factors predictive of psychological and cancer-specific distress in women with demonstrated BRCA1 mutations belonging to families with hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC). Methods We included 214 women from HBOC families who had BRCA1 testing, and who were examined with a mailed questionnaire at pre-test (T1), 6 weeks after getting the test result (T2) and 18 months later (T3). Self-rating instruments for psychological distress, cancer-specific distress and personality traits were used. Results Hardly any significant changes were observed concerning the levels of psychological and cancer-specific distress from T1 via T2 to T3 for the total group or those with carrier or non-carrier status, while women with cancer had a significant reduction of cancer-specific distress over time. The pre-test levels of psychological and cancer-specific distress were significant and strong predictors of these types of distress at T3. The personality trait of neuroticism made a significant contribution to both types of distress at pre-test, and a small separate contribution to distress at T3. Carrier status, history of personal cancer, pre-test levels of optimism or multidimensional health locus of control did not significantly predict distress at T3. Conclusions Genetic testing or test results were not found to induce psychological or cancer-specific psychological distress at long-term. Neuroticism had a decisive influence at both pre-test and long-term levels of distress.
Literature
1.
Grann VR, Jacobson JS (2002) Population screening for cancer-specific germline gene mutations. Lancet Oncol 3:341–348PubMedCrossRef
2.
Lerman C, Narod S, Schulman K et al (1996) BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. JAMA 275:1885–1892PubMedCrossRef
3.
Croyle RT, Smith KR, Botkin JR et al (1997) Psychological responses to BRCA1 mutation testing: preliminary findings. Health Psychol 16:63–72PubMedCrossRef
4.
Smith KR, West JA, Croyle RT et al (1999) Familial context of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: moderating effects of siblings’ test results on psychological distress one to two weeks after BRCA1 mutation testing. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:385–392PubMed
5.
Wagner TMU, Möslinger R, Langbauer G et al (2000) Attitude towards prophylactic surgery and effects of genetic counseling in families with BRCA mutations. Br J Cancer 82:1249–1253PubMedCrossRef
6.
Wood ME, Mullineaux L, Kulchak Rahm A et al (2000) Impact of BRCA1 testing on women with cancer: a pilot study. Genet Test 4:265–272PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lodder L, Frets PG, Trijsburg RW et al (2001) Psychological impact of receiving a BRCA1/BRCA2 test result. Am J Med Gen 98:15–24CrossRef
8.
Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M et al (2002) Psychological impact of genetic testing in women from high risk breast cancer families. Eur J Cancer 38:2025–2033PubMed
9.
Schwartz MD, Peshkin BN, Hughes C et al (2002) Impact of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation testing on psychological distress in a clinic-based sample. J Clin Oncol 20:514–520PubMedCrossRef
10.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A et al (2004) Diagnostic genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in cancer patients: women’s looking back on the pre-test period and a psychological evaluation. Genet Test 8:13–21PubMedCrossRef
11.
Reichelt JG, Heimdal K, Møller P et al (2004) BRCA1 testing with definite results: a prospective study of psychological distress in a large clinic-based sample. Fam Cancer 3:21–28PubMedCrossRef
12.
Watson M, Foster C, Eeles R et al (2004) Psychological impact of breast/ovarian (BRCA 1/2) cancer-predictive genetic testing in a UK multi-centre clinical cohort. Br J Cancer 91:1787–1794PubMedCrossRef
13.
Claes E, Evers-Kiebooms G, Denayer L et al (2005) Predictive genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: psychological distress and illness representations 1 year following disclosure. J Genet Counsel 14:349–363CrossRef
14.
Møller P, Borg A, Heimdal K et al (2001) The BRCA1 syndrome and other inherited breast or breast-ovarian cancers in a Norwegian prospective series. Eur J Cancer 37:1027–1032PubMedCrossRef
15.
Geirdal AØ, Reichelt JG, Dahl AA et al (2005) Psychological distress in women at risk of hereditary breast/ovarian or HNPCC cancers in the absence of demonstrated mutations. Fam Cancer 4:121–126PubMedCrossRef
16.
van Oostrom I, Meijers-Heiboer H, Lodder LN et al (2003) Long-term psychological impact of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation and prophylactic surgery: a 5-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 21:3867–3874PubMedCrossRef
17.
Broadstock M, Michie S, Marteau T (2000) Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Gen 8:731–738CrossRef
18.
Vadaparampil ST, Ropka M, Stefanek ME (2005) Measurement of psychological factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary breast, ovarian and colon cancer. Fam Cancer 4:195–206PubMedCrossRef
19.
Timman R, Stijnen T, Tibben A (2004) Methodology in longitudinal studies on psychological effects of predictive DNA testing: a review. J Med Genet 41:e100PubMedCrossRef
20.
Audrain J, Schwartz MD, Lerman C et al (1997) Psychological distress in women seeking genetic counseling for breast-ovarian cancer risk: the contributions of personality and appraisal. Ann Behav Med 19:370–377PubMedCrossRef
21.
Rotter J (1966) Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 80:1–28PubMed
22.
Wallston KA (2005) The validity of the multidimensional health locus of control scales. J Health Psychol 10:623–631PubMedCrossRef
23.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG (1975) Manual of the Eysenck personality inventory. Hodder and Stoughton, London
24.
Weinstock LM, Whisman MA (2006) Neuroticism as a common feature of the depressive and anxiety disorders: a test of the revised integrative hierarchical model in a national sample. J Abnorm Psychol 115:68–74PubMedCrossRef
25.
Watson D, Gamez W, Simms LJ (2005) Basic dimensions of temperament and their relation to anxiety and depression: a symptom-based perspective. J Res Personal 39:46–66CrossRef
26.
Bodd TL, Reichelt JG, Heimdal K et al (2003) Uptake of BRCA1 genetic testing in adult sisters and daughters of known mutation carriers in Norway. J Genet Couns 12:405–417PubMedCrossRef
27.
Möller P, Evans G, Haites N et al (1999) Guidelines for follow-up of women at high risk for inherited breast cancer: consensus statement from the biomed 2 demonstration programme on inherited breast cancer. Dis Markers 15:207–211PubMed
28.
Möller P, Maehle L, Heimdal K (1998) Prospective findings in breast cancer kindreds. Annual incidence rates according to age, stage at diagnosis, mean sojourn time, and incidence rates for contralateral cancer. Breast 7:55–59CrossRef
29.
Eysenck SBG, Eysenck HJ, Barrett P (1985) A revised version of the psychoticism scale. Pers Individ Dif 6:21–29CrossRef
30.
Kendler KS, Gatz M, Gardner CO et al (2006) Personality and major depression. A Swedish, longitudinal, population-based twin study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 63:1113–1120PubMedCrossRef
31.
Tambs K, Sundet JM, Eaves L et al (1991) Pedigree analysis of Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ) scores in monozygotic (MZ) twin families. Behav Gen 21:369–382CrossRef
32.
Eysenck SBG, Tambs K (1990) Cross-cultural comparison of personality: Norway and England. Scand J Psychol 31:191–197CrossRef
33.
Beck AT, Weissman A, Lester D et al (1974) The measurement of pessimism. The hopelessness scale. J Consult Clin Psychol 42:861–865PubMedCrossRef
34.
Steed L (2001) Further validity and reliability evidence for Beck hopelessness scale scores in a nonclinical sample. Educ Psychol Meas 61:303–316CrossRef
35.
Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT et al (2002) The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 52:69–77PubMedCrossRef
36.
Smith AB, Wright EP, Rush R et al (2006) Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale. Psycho-Oncology 15:817–827PubMedCrossRef
37.
Sundin EC, Horowitz MJ (2002) Impact of event scale: psychometric properties. Br J Psychiatry 180:205–209PubMedCrossRef
38.
Thewes B, Meiser B, Hickie IB (2001) Psychometric properties of the impact of event scale among women at increased risk for hereditary breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 10: 459–468PubMedCrossRef
39.
Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW (1994) Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a re-evaluation of the life orientation test. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:1063–1078PubMedCrossRef
40.
Ormel J, Rosemalen J, Farmer A (2004) Neuroticism: a non-informative marker of vulnerability to psychopathology. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 39:906–912PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Psychological and cancer-specific distress at 18 months post-testing in women with demonstrated BRCA1 mutations for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer
Authors
Jon G. Reichelt
Pål Møller
Ketil Heimdal
Alv A. Dahl
Publication date
01-09-2008
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 3/2008
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-008-9182-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2008

Familial Cancer 3/2008 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Probability estimation models for prediction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: COS compares favourably with other models

OriginalPaper

Inequality of use of Cancer Genetics Services by members of breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer families in South East Scotland

OriginalPaper

Tumor histology helps to identify Lynch syndrome among colorectal cancer patients

ReviewPaper

Use of association studies to define genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

OriginalPaper

Prolactin levels, breast-feeding and milk production in a cohort of young healthy women from high-risk breast cancer families: implications for breast cancer risk

BriefCommunication

Muir-Torre Syndrome: expanding the genotype and phenotype—a further family with a MSH6 mutation
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits